at MAX almost 50% of the sessions are about Zorn or include Zorn some
how, I'm sure we'll all have a clear picture of what the future holds
after MAX.
// sam robbins
// pixelconsumption
Clint Modien wrote:
> According to Mike Chambers @ MM Zorn will
>
> http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mesh/archives/2005/08/will_zorn_requi.cfm
>
>
> On 9/29/05, *Kevin Langdon* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> WARNING: This message contains little-to-no helpful information
> and for the
> most part is a rant.
>
> The problem with Flex pricing isn't the price itself. The problem
> is it's
> model. Most development I have seen is only using Flex as a
> compiler, not a
> service. Most applications would actually perform better if
> developers
> simply compiled locally using mxmlc and then used non-Flex
> technologies like
> Remoting or openAMF on their production servers. More developers,
> able to
> develop in this architecture, need to bring this up with Macromedia.
> Macromedia needs to understand that we are willing to pay them for
> the CPUs
> that we compile on, but it is just ridiculous to expect us to pay
> for the
> servers serving those static swf files.
>
> Flash is a client-side technology. It has nothing to do with
> servers and
> therefore CPU pricing makes no sense. What if I were to build a
> desktop
> application compiled using Flex? Is Macromedia telling me that I
> need to
> pay for each one of my user's CPUs?
>
> I am holding my breath hoping that Zorn fixes this problem.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf Of Niklas Richardson
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:43 AM
> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex Server Alternatives
>
> Someone might have mentioned this already, but I haven't seen it.
>
> If you want some of the functionality of Flex (i.e. forms, data grid,
> etc...) and cost is an issue, then ColdFusion MX 7 could be an
> option for
> you. It has a very cut down version of Flex built into it and
> accessible
> via ColdFusion tags, however you can still build some pretty good
> app's with
> it - if budget is an issue. Also, there are plenty of companies
> providing
> ColdFusion MX 7 hosting.
>
> Check out the team over at ASFusion (http://www.asfusion.com/) who are
> really doing some cool stuff using ColdFusion MX 7 Flash Forms!
>
> Also, http://www.cfform.com/.
>
>
>
> On 29/09/05, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/29/05, Tariq Ahmed < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > Well I don't know if I would venture to "dirt cheap". What other
> > > systems
> > are you referring to?
> >
> > See SAP for starters, then once you jump that hurdle, now look at
> > anything with the word "ORACLE" in it.
> >
> >
> > > If you're enterprise, and building mission critical apps, and
> > > especially
> > if it affects financial performance and need to be SOX compliant
> > you're basic setup is:
> >
> >
> > > - 1 Development WS
> > > - 1 QA Server
> > > - High Availability Setup (at least 2 load balanced machines).
> > > - Disaster Recovery Site (min 1 web server).
> > >
> > > If you're using decent hardware with 4CPU Xeons, you've got 5
> > > machines * 4
> > cpus/ea = 20 CPUs * $15K/cpu = $300 000.
> > >
> > > You would have to REALLY boost automation, workflow efficiency,
> > > etc... to
> > recuperate the cost of Flex licensing and Flex application
> development
> > (not everyone is Scott Barnes level super coder) vs a
> CF/Whatever based
> solution.
> > Not to say that it can't be done, and I'm
> >
> > You'd still outlay the same costs if not more with a HTML based
> > solution such as CFMX. Furthermore, if you are to comply with
> SOX you
> > have
